Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 59
Like Tree2Likes

Thread: New Eissenberg study vindicates e-cigarettes

  1. #1
    Executive Director
    Smokefree Pennsylvania
    Vaping Advocate
    ECF Veteran
    Supporting Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    3,662

    Default New Eissenberg study vindicates e-cigarettes

    Tom Eissenberg et al have published a new study comparing e-cigarette usage to cigarette usage. The results vindicate e-cigarettes.

    I've tried to attach a PDF of the article, but don't know if it worked.
    Attached Files Attached Files

  2. #2
    Ultra Member ECF Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    USA-Florida
    Posts
    2,041

    Default

    Yep, it works...good news...thanks for posting!

  3. #3
    PV Master ECF Veteran mini_art's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Florida USA
    Posts
    4,438

    Default

    So basically its saying that e cigs really dont deliver nicotene.
    Well ok , if that is true, then we can all quit today right? Hmmm.
    Either way, it is a good report for the industry.

  4. #4
    Full Member ECF Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    120

    Default

    Very interesting find. They show almost no nicotine elevation with the e-cigs, but show a slight trending of heart rate change. Since they say the "sham" product was the persons own brand, I assume this was simply puffing on an unlit cig.

    I wonder how much of the satisfaction effect is simply caused by the appearance of a smoke like product. I know it seems to me that vapor production effects my personal opinions. Whenever I have a juice or cartridge with low vapor production it does not seem as satisfying to me. Similarly, I can change from 18 mg to 12 mg and they both seem fine as long as the vapor production is good.

    Thanks for sharing the report.

  5. #5
    Super Member ECF Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    cedar rapids, iowa
    Posts
    660

    Default

    Very interesting study and I am glad that Dr. Eissenberg continued this work and obviously did a much better job of it this time. I am particularly interested in the finding that the e-cigs did not, according to his tests, provide a 'signifcant' amount of nicotine to the user, yet still had obvious beneficial results. This poses many more questions than it answers but I am certainly heartened by the fact that studies are being done and more accurate information is being collected. I firmly believe that the science will inevitably show what so many have already been saying and that is, that this technology is, in fact, "safer" than traditional tobacco smoking and is unequivocally a viable tobacco harm reduction alternative.

  6. #6
    Forum Manager Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    Supporting Member
    rolygate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Surrey, UK
    Posts
    7,128

    Default

    Thanks Bill.

    Briefly, this trial confirms my previous statement that:

    If a new ecigarette user, with a new ecigarette, is deliberately isolated from expert advice as to how to specify the correct materials, how to set up the product correctly, and how to use it correctly, then they will get little or no nicotine in the bloodstream as a result of using it.

    This is my conclusion from the results of three clinical trials which all agree on this result (Bullen / Laugesen, Siegel, Eissenberg).

    Difference from tobacco cigarettes
    The most important fact that an experienced user would be aware of is that there is no comparison with a tobacco cigarette whatsoever in either the purchase procedure for e-cigarette hardware or refills [1], the product preparation [2], or the use of the product [3]. The single common factor is that both are placed in the mouth. Apart from that, there are no similarities between a tobacco cigarette and an e-cigarette.

    [1] The strongest retail e-liquid available is needed for a new user - 36mg. It is proven (by these three trials) that medium or low-strength liquid does not work. This high-strength liquid needs to be ordered specifically as it will not be included in standard retail packs. In contrast, a cigarette buyer just buys their preferred brand over the counter and it will deliver exactly the result they need.
    [2] A new unit needs the zero-nic transport liquid removed, and some high-strength refill liquid dripped onto the atomizer. This sort of procedure is unknown to a cigarette smoker, who simply extracts the product from a pack and lights it up.
    [3] Inhalation technique is of a completely different type from that used with a tobacco cigarette. For example an experienced user, given one of these low-power units loaded with medium or low-strength liquid, would inhale lightly, direct to the lungs, for between 6 and 10 seconds. Of course, this cannot be achieved by a first-time user without expert instruction. In addition, a standard e-cigarette must be used for between three and four times as long as a tobacco cigarette in order to acquire sufficient nicotine input (ie around fifteen minutes). In contrast a cigarette smoker automatically inhales strongly, for a brief period of around one second, and the cigarette is finished in about five minutes. Thus there is no similarity in the way the two products are used. An e-cigarette is bought, prepared and used as differently from a tobacco cigarette as a power drill is. There are no similarities at all.

    E-cigs don't work
    Therefore, three carefully conducted and valid clinical trials have effectively proved that e-cigarettes don't work.

    This is an interesting conclusion because:
    a) It creates a very strong legal definition. Ecigarettes are proven not to deliver nicotine to the user, or in such insignificant amounts that they cannot constitute in any way a drug delivery system. Both the amounts observed, or lack of them, plus the carefully observed metabolic effects (none), prove this.

    b) In order to challenge this result, more trials would need to be conducted that strongly contradicted these results.

    c) If e-cigarettes are to be regulated on the basis they actually do something, as against being claimed to do something, then this third trial which again confirms the results of previous trials destroys any possibility that such an attempt at regulation could succeed at law. In effect, e-cigarettes are proven not to do anything, and this could not now be challenged in court (without further trials that produced directly contradictory results).

    The fact that we know different is neither here nor there - it certainly has no legal significance.

    It should be noted here that the results of Intellicig's recent trial appear to conflict. However, the full trial results have not been published, and they appear unwilling to publish the precise levels of serum nicotine, which may also be insignificant, although one would doubt this as they should at least know how to use an e-cigarette.

    Notes on the PDF content
    The phrase 'own brand' is initially confusing as it is not explained. It means the subject's preferred cigarette brand.

    The trial was conducted in accordance with:
    '.....package instructions [that] state that electronic cigarettes should be used similarly to a tobacco cigarette, .....'
    Any experienced user would know that any such instruction is incorrect and will lead to sub-optimal results.

    Repeated here:
    'Consistent with product instructions, participants were instructed to puff from the electronic cigarette devices as they would a normal cigarette.....'
    As stated, this instruction is incorrect.

    '...unlike puffing from a tobacco cigarette, two 10-puff bouts with the two electronic cigarettes described here expose users to no measurable nicotine or CO...'
    So, e-cigarettes don't work. In addition they don't poison the user with carbon monoxide, which is useful to know.

    And repeated:
    ' Despite the failure to deliver nicotine, .....'


    And again:
    'In spite of delivering no measurable nicotine, .....'

    So we can be quite sure that electronic cigarettes don't work.

    With regard to CO intake:
    'Importantly, neither of the electronic cigarettes tested in this study was associated with any measurable CO exposure. Long-term CO exposure has been linked to cardio vascular disease caused by tobacco cigarette smoking.....'
    Apparently, they are unlikely to cause heart disease either - again, useful to know.

    An interesting statement:
    ' Clinical laboratory methods have an important role to play in this empirical examination, ...... These methods will likely be extremely important to any future regulation of electronic cigarettes either as tobacco products or drug delivery devices in the United States (i.e., by the Food and Drug Administration) and elsewhere.'
    Although it's not possible to know exactly what the author had in mind, one reading of this statement is: "If e-cigarettes are to be regulated on their efficacy or otherwise as drug delivery devices, then as such they are proven not to deliver". This statement therefore appears sympathetic to us.

    On the topic of using beginners instead of experienced users:
    '...and inclusion of electronic cigarette-naïve participants who may be representative of cigarette smokers sampling an electronic cigarette for the first time, but not of a more experienced electronic cigarette user population.'
    The author admits that beginners may not be the best subjects, experienced users might produce a different result.

    He notes that the results of other trials concur:
    'It is noted that the nicotine delivery results are similar to another clinical trial (the Bullen/Laugesen Ruyan trial).'

    And sums up by stating:
    'In sum, this study revealed that two electronic cigarette brands do not expose electronic cigarette-naïve users to nicotine or carbon monoxide under the acute testing procedures described here, .....'

    Conclusion
    So there we have it: ecigs don't work - and if they are to be regulated on the basis that they deliver a drug or have some form of effect on the human body, we now have three trials that say there is no such delivery and no such effect.

    This creates a firm legal position that would be impossible to challenge without further, conflicting trials. If such trials were conducted by or funded by an organisation with a vested interest in producing conflicting results (such as the FDA), such results would not have the necessary stature to provide any proof.

    And my viewpoint...
    As an ecigarette user, I know these trials are, shall we say, 'flawed', but am very pleased indeed by the results.

    We all know that an experienced user, by correct specification / preparation / user technique, can derive so much nicotine that O/D is possible*. But that doesn't matter: legally, e-cigarettes are now proven not to work and that's a great result
    * This statement is simply an opinion; compared to the identical results of three independent trials it has no importance whatsoever.

    You should remember that we are venturing into lala land when we enter the world of government regulation and legal dispute. Truth, fact, morals, ethics, human life or any other considerations important to the individual or even the population at large have no significance here. We now have incontrovertible proof that ecigarettes don't work and we should be very glad of it indeed.
    Last edited by rolygate; 07-23-2010 at 01:17 AM. Reason: formatting
    darco and MikesAOK like this.

  7. #7
    DC2
    DC2 is offline
    I'm Chucked Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    Supporting Member
    DC2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    17,614

    Default

    Looking forward to following this discussion...

  8. #8
    PV Master Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    Supporting Member
    rothenbj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Green Lane, Pa
    Posts
    5,668

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rolygate View Post
    Thanks Bill.

    Briefly, this trial confirms my previous statement that:........

    We now have incontrovertible proof that ecigarettes don't work and we should be very glad of it indeed.
    I am in complete concurrence with what you wrote and the results of the monumental studies.

    The FDA should immediately drop their embargo and stop their appeal of the verdict and let the E-cig rise and fall on the merits of being a smoking simulator that may give the smoker enough of an impression of smoking to overcome an addiction to the most addictive substance known to man- nicotine.

    This gimmick has proven to be successful in getting millions to stop smoking those deadly analogs without continuing their nicotine addiction. For those truly addicted to nicotine or other tobacco alkaloids, there is always snus and the theater prop to get them off the really deadly products. Win win in my mind.

    I just spent a brief time with some new Blu users that it is not working for. I'm going to have to educate them in how to get more vapor output so they are fooled into believing they are not smoking so they can become un-addicted. Smokescreens are us.

  9. #9
    Super Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    438

    Default

    Interesting, I've added it to my research library.

    Thanks for posting!

  10. #10
    Super Member ECF Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    cedar rapids, iowa
    Posts
    660

    Default

    I totally agree with Roly in that participants were not "accurately instructed" as to "optimum e-cig use/technique" that an experienced user would be familiar with - thus likely accounting for the little to no nicotine level increase results and yet benefits were still derived. But hey, this study is part of the 'record' now, as it were, so what the h***, let them think/believe we are not getting any or very little nicotine - it's merely "pretend smoking" and a very clever psychological gimmick - so it helps to dismiss the whole "drug delivery device" argument as well as any "second-hand vapor" danger since if there is little to no nicotine 'going in' certainly no more can be "going out" /exhaled into the air. This study also really throws a wrench into the addiction argument

Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •